Multiple tickets = Fear

Coupon-mad

Woohoo!  ANOTHER PREMIER PARK ONE BITES THE DUST - MULTI-TICKETS AS WELL! 
Nicely done!

Please do a court report like I did on the thread by @Old_Bird_65 last week.

D_P_Dance

Now read this

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-before-small-claims-court-claim

There may be an opportunity to waste some of their time/money.

swan351

Hi. Firstly, court report is coming. 
Secondly, as you may be aware this thread is about multiple (14 in all) tickets. Two of which have been (I hope*) defeated.
Today I received an LBC from CST law for 4 more of the tickets. CAN THIS BE REAL??
My question is, do I respond to the law firm and tell them they have already lost this case, or should I be trying to contact Premier Park directly to tell them to cancel the remaining 12 tickets as they have already lost in court once?
*as to that hope, I today received my court expenses from BW Legal. The ref on the later still shows the outstanding balance on the account as it was before the court hearing. Are they really that dumb?

D_P_Dance

Cntact the PPC, tcopy to CST.



















he solicitor does as their client bids.  You ca of course copy it The PPC

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

Cntact the PPC, tcopy to CST.



















he solicitor does as their client bids.  You ca of course copy it The PPC

Houston, we have a problem ........   💥 🔥 🧨 🚀 

Coupon-mad

swan351 said:

Hi. Firstly, court report is coming. 

Secondly, as you may be aware this thread is about multiple (14 in all) tickets. Two of which have been (I hope*) defeated.
Today I received an LBC from CST law for 4 more of the tickets. CAN THIS BE REAL??
My question is, do I respond to the law firm and tell them they have already lost this case, or should I be trying to contact Premier Park directly to tell them to cancel the remaining 12 tickets as they have already lost in court once?
*as to that hope, I today received my court expenses from BW Legal. The ref on the later still shows the outstanding balance on the account as it was before the court hearing. Are they really that dumb?

Looking forward to the court report!

Re the LBC about duplicate facts PCNs, adapt this:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77605269#Comment_77605269

Then, please please please...do this within the week!!

 

CHANNEL YOUR ANGER ABOUT THIS PATHETIC CHARGE TO CHANGE THE WAY THE PARKING INDUSTRY WORK:

CALLING ALL NEWBIES! 

 

An urgent task – deadline approaching in a week or so:

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have yet, and time is running out. 

The Government is consulting for just a few more days, about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework intended to rein in the rogue parking firms. 

Does it go far enough?  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation (two separate consultation documents).

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

BSI PAS 232 – COMMENTING ON THE CODE OF PRACTICE AS DRAFTED :

1.    You will need to register then log in, to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker.  

 

2.    Register, log into the BSI page, and download & read the cover letter here:

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

 

3.    Read the cover letter again and note the suggested extra questions... if you agree that, say, the 'loading/unloading and dropping off, asking for directions, and disabled people parking on double yellows as they can on street' activities listed should be exempt (not parking events, what do you think?) then please go to the Annexes at the end of the PAS Code and find the one about Exempt Vehicles and state what other activity you think should be added to the exempt list. 

 

4.    Download the PAS itself and start commenting on what you wish to say something about.  Quick links to each section appear on the left of your page. 

 

You don’t have to comment on everything, e.g. you might want to skip the definitions and focus on later sections, and certainly look at the Annex tables at the end that show things like consideration & grace periods and exemptions.

 

5.    Submit comments when you are happy with them. Don’t just ‘SAVE’ and forget!

 

THAT IS HALF THE JOB DONE!

THE MHCLG CONSULTATION IS EASIER AS IT IS JUST A LIST OF QUESTIONS. 

 

6.    You can do it first if preferred or pushed for time:

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=EGg0v32c3kOociSi7zmVqAVPfAOtwRxLhHRwQ610oElUMzhQSVo0WUQ4SERVSEZaUU9DTUhFQ1VMUy4u

If your answers exceed 4000 characters (approx. 500 words to a single question or 16000 words (approx. 2500 words) for all the questions below, you can email your answers to parking@communities.gov.uk as long as you state who you are.

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU WILL SEE, FOR RESPONSES TO THE FRAMEWORK:

Q1 Do you agree or disagree that members of APAs should be required to use a single appeals service appointed by the Secretary of State?

Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree

 

Q1.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q2 Please provide any other feedback on the determination of appeals, including the funding model and features that an appeal service should offer e.g. telephone or in-person hearings, the ability to submit evidence online

(free text)

 

Q3 Please provide any comments you have on the proposal to enforce the Code by combining the ATA’s existing audit procedures with additional safeguards.

(free text)

 

Q4 Please outline any alternative means by which the Code could be monitored and enforced. You may wish to cite evidence from other regulatory frameworks which are relevant.

(free text)

 

Q5 Please provide any feedback you have on the proposed governance arrangements for monitoring the new Code of Practice

(free text)

 

Q6 Which parking charge system is most appropriate for private parking?

 a) the Three-tiered system

 b) Mirroring the Local Authority system

(free text)

 

 Q6.1 Please explain your answer. You may, for example, wish to make reference to other deterrent frameworks (for example, for railway tickets or traffic violations)

(free text)

 

 

Q7 What level of discount is appropriate:

40% as is currently offered in private parking and suggested in the three-tiered system, or

50% as is offered in Local Authority parking?

a) 40%

b) 50%

 

Q7.1 Please explain your answer, including whether the discount should be set at a different level

(free text)

 

 

 Q8 How should the level of parking charges be set and how should the levels be revised in future?

(free text)

 

 

Q9 Do you agree or disagree in principle with the idea of the Appeals Charter?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q9.1 Please explain your answer

(free text)

 

 

Q10 Do you agree or not that the examples given in the Appeals Charter are fair and appropriate? Agree/Disagree

 

Q10.1 Please explain your answer.

You may wish, for example, to suggest additional cases to be covered in an Appeals Charter or query existing examples.

(free text)

 

Q11 Do you agree or disagree that the parking industry should contribute towards the cost of the regulation?

Agree/Disagree

 

Q11.1 Please explain your answer.

(free text)

YOU CAN INSTEAD GIVE MORE CONCISE ANSWERS ONLINE, USING THE MHCLG PAGE LINK.

Don’t forget that answering these questions is the easier bit…

Looking at the BSI PAS (the draft code of practice itself) involves logging in and submitting comments again, and again and again and takes more time!

There is a discussion about PAS submissions and what the pages look like, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6195417/am-i-doing-something-wrong/p1

swan351

Hey. Happy December all. I hope life is treating you fairly in these strange times.
I wanted to wait to post my court report, becasue despite winning, I didn't feel like it was over. I still had 12 outstanding tickets against me. I am happy to say that today i received an email directly from Premier Park;

Dear A*** B*****

We write further to your email of 01 October 2020 and apologies for the delay in responding to the same.

Please be advised that the remaining twelve outstanding Parking Charge Notices issued against the above referenced VRM have been cancelled and are no longer outstanding.  

We thank you for contacting us.

Yours sincerely,

Jacob

Jacob E********

Compliance and Enforcement Executive

Premier Park Ltd.

PO Box 624

Exeter

Devon

EX1 9JG

And so to my court report.........

swan351

In the county court of Edmonton

Claim No. F0DP96RC

In front of DDJ Francis Cassidy.

 

28-8-20; I nervously waited for my court time of 10am to arrive. At 9.30 I got a call from the claimants advocate asking me if I had had an email from the court yet. An email that would give us the link to the Skype business call. I hadn’t. He hadn’t. What he had done was check the case listings for the court that day and our case wasn’t listed. He gave me the link for the website. I checked it. Our case wasn’t listed. We agreed that if either of us heard anything we would kindly let the other know.

Shortly after 11am, he called again. He said in his experience, if notice of the hearing wasn’t listed and we hadn’t had the email link yet, it was unlikely the case would be heard today and that he was “officially standing down” as he had other work to get on with.

I took off my tie, undid my top button and felt much frustration, because I had believed that win or lose, this was going to be decided TODAY!

At 11.45 he called again, to say that he had spoken to the claimant and as far as they were concerned the case was definitely being heard today.

At 11.55am the email arrived from the court stating that the case would begin at 12 noon. Mad rush to get my tie back on, dog out of the room, kids occupied etc. etc. I am still unsure whether the communication I had with the advocate was genuine nicety or it was a ploy to unsettle me somewhat!

After a couple of connection issues which the court usher was very patient about, I was in the linked meeting with the Judge and the claimants advocate.

The judge very quickly summarised what he felt the case boiled down to. A disagreement as to whether I was legitimately parked on the basis that I believed my vehicle should be on the PPC virtual permit system. And the claimants assertion that my vehicle was not on their virtual permit system at the time of parking.

Both myself and the advocate agreed that that was the basis for this case. The judge did say that having briefly looked at both statements, I had the stronger case, but that he needed to hear all the evidence in full before making the decision. He asked to hear the claimants’ evidence first.

I was surprised how unprepared the advocate for the claimant was. When I had spoken to him on the phone he seemed very calm, pleasant and together. When he started to cite their evidence, however, he sounded like he was looking at the detail for the first time. This gave me great confidence. I knew how well I knew the detail of the case and was looking forward to putting my side across to the judge.

I sat quietly while the advocate went through what he had in front of him. It was soon my turn and for the most part I was able to tell my side of the story without interruption.

The judge was very thorough. He seemed to have a handle on the detail of the case and after a bit of toing and froing it came down to a couple of aspects of the signage within the car park. The two statements that he considered that the case hinged on were “All permit holders must have their vehicle pre-registered before using the car park” and “The White Swan is not involved in the parking management of this car park and cannot intervene in any disputes”

A lot of my evidence relied upon communication between myself and the pub management. The advocate kept stating the 2nd of the two above statements as evidence that my defence was not relevant. He also pointed out that the 1st statement shows it was my responsibility to ensure that I was pre-registered on the permit system.

It was at this point I asked the advocate a question that I had pre-planned the night before, because I knew he wouldn’t be able to answer it. I asked “could the advocate explain the procedure for registering a vehicle on the permit system and if that procedure didn’t actually start with the pub management, where did it start?

I think the judge was impressed with the question. In fact he said, “good question” He asked the advocate if he knew, and of course, he didn’t. He asked the advocate the likelihood of him being able to find out the answer from the claimant with one phone call and in a short amount of time? The advocate agreed that this wouldn’t be possible.

The judge said it seemed likely that if it wasn’t possible for him to make contact with the claimant to find out such a simple bit of information, it was reasonable to assume that it wasn’t possible for me to ascertain information regarding the virtual permit system for myself.

The judge then pointed us to a clause in the service agreement between the pub and Premier Park.  “4.2. The Client (i.e. the pub) controls the permit system for staff, customers & contractors and is responsible for registering all vehicles with rights to park upon this system”.

He pointed out that this directly contradicts the statement on the signage “The White Swan is not involved in the parking management of this car park and cannot intervene in any disputes” and therefore the fault lay between the pub management and Premier Park and he was satisfied that I had taken all the measures I could to ensure that I was parking legitimately.

He ruled in my favour and ordered Premier Park to pay some of my costs (loss of one days pay) the sum of £95.

My summary of costs included 2 land registry enquiries, but as the ownership of the land was not in doubt the judge decide that he wasn’t awarding me those costs. My summary also included cost relating to the claimants unreasonable behaviour pursuant to the civil procedure rule 27.14, but as this portion of my defence hadn’t been pertinent in this case, these costs also were not awarded.

I was just so relieved that I had won, I wasn’t concerned.

I was also relieved that the parts of my witness statement pertaining to the legitimacy of the contract between the pub and the PPC and the supplementary witness statement which covered the “double recovery” aspect of PPC money grabbing weren’t really commented on by either the judge or the advocate.

While I was very confident in my knowledge of my side of the story, I know I would have gone to pieces if I had tried to go into any detail on these aspects. Indeed when I did touch on Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 as a reason as to why the contract between pub and PPC may not be valid, the Judge immediately asked the advocate if he had anything to say on that matter and the advocate came straight back and cited Section 43.1.b;

 

43Company contracts

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a contract may be made—

(a) by a company, by writing under its common seal, or

(b) on behalf of a company, by a person acting under its authority, express or implied.

 

The judge agreed with his point and offered me the opportunity to look at that section myself and asked if I understood it. I was a little shocked at how quickly this argument was dismissed.  My impression was that while I was citing Section 44, the judge already had 43.1.b in his mind and was just allowing the advocate the chance to call it.

It may be my VERY limited legal knowledge, but upon reading that, I saw no counter argument to it and had to agree that that part of my witness statement was irrelevant. I don’t believe my citing Section 44, seemingly incorrectly, had any impact on the outcome of the case, but I would be concerned if someone else was relying on this Clause, when it was batted away so easily. Any thoughts?

I am happy to be able to say, that lockdown provided me with a positive today. I am grateful that my hearing was done remotely. I think that being on a screen provided me with a much needed barrier. In person I think I would have been far more flustered, much less coherent and having my wife close by and able to find bits of relevant paperwork when I needed them really helped me stay calm.

It is not a process I enjoyed and it takes a LOT of work. The people on this forum are an absolute wonder. That they put forward their expertise and knowledge at no cost is simply marvellous and I thank and commend you all.

Thank you.

 

Umkomaas

What a great report, thank you for feeding that back to us. A good win on the day and an even greater win perhaps in the cancellation of 12 other tickets. 

13 cases for PP Ltd down the Swanee - unlucky! 🤭

Fruitcake

Well done on your win and thanks for the detailed court report.

It seems a few scammers have recently started using S43 (Simple Contract) as a counter to S44 non compliance of the Companies Act. It is therefore necessary to ensure defendants are conversant with para 2 of S43, 

(2)   Any formalities required by law in the case of a contract made by an individual also apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to a contract made by or on behalf of a company.

Formalities required by law would include authority (and signatures) from the other party.